Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Lewes District Council (202107034)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107034

Lewes District Council

7 January 2022


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to charge the resident for planned repair works to the building his property is in.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. The reasons for this decision are set out below.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property and the landlord is the freeholder. The resident lives in a flat within a block of flats.
  2. The landlord issued a Section 20 notice of planned works to the block on 11 July 2018. The resident provided observations to the landlord in response to this notice.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident on 13 August 2018. The landlord advised that the windows had been surveyed and found to be in “reasonable condition with no visible defects” and the recommendation from the survey was that they be cleaned as no replacement was required. It also confirmed that the communal flooring would be replaced and that it would pass on his comments about other works to the surveyor overseeing the works.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord stating that he felt the expense of erecting scaffolding to his block to carry out a “small amount of pointing and to check the gutters” was unnecessary. He said that it was “scandalous” that the landlord did not use the opportunity to replace the “many” blown double glazing units in the building. The resident also said that he felt that parts of the redecoration work carried out by the landlord were “questionable”. The landlord acknowledged this complaint about the external decorations and repairs to the building by letter on 2 November 2020, saying that it would investigate his concerns and respond in due course.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 4 August 2021, following contact from this Service. It relayed that it had carried out a Section 20 consultation with residents about the proposed works to the building in May 2019 and confirmed that it provided a summary of feedback received during the consultation and issued the contract at the lowest bid at the end of its procurement process. The landlord provided a summary of the estimated costs of the work compared to the final actual costs and asked the resident to review this information so that it could answer any specific queries about this.
  6. The landlord said that its records of the works did not show any “malpractice, critical health and safety issues or resident complaints” whilst the works were ongoing. It asked the resident to provide any evidence that contradicted this. The landlord noted his wish for an independent surveyor to advise on the works it carried out and said that it had no objection to this. It asked the resident to comment on the final account in the meantime so that it could answer any specific queries he may have.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 25 August 2021. He informed it that he continued to be dissatisfied with the cost of full scaffolding to carry out cleaning to the flat roof gutter and “do minimal pointing” whilst double glazing, which he raised during the Section 20 consultation, was not replaced. The resident was also unhappy with the cost of the asbestos floor tile removal and expressed concern with the management of safety during this work as resident had had full access to walk past workers who were wearing protective equipment.
  8. The resident asserted that residents of the block were not informed of work to carry out the latex levelling of the floor, causing some to walk on the unset surface, which left footprints. He also highlighted that after it redecorated the stairways and corridors, it took down the ceiling tiles and plaster to redecorate again.
  9. The landlord provided its final stage complaint response to the resident on 17 September 2021 in which it summarised his complaint as:
    1. Dissatisfaction with the cost of full scaffolding to the rear and side of the building when no windows were replaced.
    2. He felt that scaffolding was unnecessary for the work carried out to the flat roof.
    3. Residents had access to the block while asbestos removal works were being carried out and windows and doors were not covered up during the work.
    4. Tiles on the lower ground floor were not removed and instead had carpet tiles glued down on them.
    5. The operatives did not use a vacuum cleaner to clean up after the work and used brooms which spread dust particles.
    6. The cost of redecorating the stairwells and corridors as they had recently been redecorated, then had the ceiling tiles pulled down and redecorated again.
  10. The landlord said that it had replied to the resident’s concerns over the windows on 13 August 2018 during the Section 20 consultation. It relayed that it had surveyed the windows at the time they were found to be in reasonable condition. The landlord had completed a stock condition survey on 16 June 2020 which had recommended that the windows be reviewed again for replacement in 2023.
  11. The landlord relayed that itself and its contractors had a duty to conduct works in accordance with the Work at Height Regulations 2005 which stated that scaffolding was necessary for the works it carried out at the block to clear the gutters, carry out external decoration and repoint the brickwork.
  12. The landlord confirmed that, in accordance with HSE A23 guidelines for non-notifiable non-licensed asbestos removal work, it delivered letters to residents of the block advising them of the upcoming removal of the flooring and that access would restricted during this time to minimise the number of people present.
  13. The landlord advised that not all floor tiles were found to contain asbestos. These were therefore left in place and overlaid with carpet.
  14. The landlord advised that the specification for the work required that the contractor was to remove all rubbish and clean down working areas prior to the final inspection. It confirmed that its surveyor had inspected the work and found that this had been completed satisfactorily.
  15. The landlord acknowledged that it was “not ideal” that the ceiling tiles were removed after redecoration. It explained that this had not formed part of the original scope of works and had been identified as necessary through a fire risk assessment. The landlord confirmed that the resident had not been double charges for the repeat redecoration work as this had been charged to the contractor as part of the original contract. It also advised that the work to remove the ceiling tiles would not be recharged as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord confirmed that this concluded its internal consideration of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
  2. The resident advised this Service on 23 June 2021 that he felt that the works carried out by the landlord were not necessary and he did not agree with paying for them. Disputes which relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). As the substance of the resident’s complaint is that he disputes the value of the Section 20 works carried out by the landlord, the Tribunal may be better placed to resolve his dispute. The resident may also seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/).